Jabsco Twist 'n' Lock vs Raritan PHC

[Victory]

The original question was based on a comparison between the Jabsco and a Raritan PHC not the PHII. There is a big price difference between those two Raritan heads. Just wondering what is the difference between those besides price. There have been many comments about the PHII but it's not relevant to the original post and somewhat misleading.

Glad you mentioned that..... I thought the PHII for 260 was pretty low...... I did look up the PHC and it appears to be the compact version with an extendable handle... I like it.... if I hadn't got my jabsco so cheap I'd have purchase the PHC......... might have done it anyway if I'd known more at the time............

That said... the Jabsco twist loc is FAR FAR superior to the old WC Head-mate, heh, heh.

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

Why the PHC/PHII is a better toilet than the Jabsco manual

First...the the PHC is just the "compact" version of the PH II...it's the same pump, but on a compact base and with a shorter handle. So everything that applies to the quality/durability/reliability/operation of the PHII also applies to the the PHC.

The PHII/PHC is a much better toilet than the Jabsco or any other compact manual toilet made today because the PH II has a piston that has a 2 1/2 inch diameter; the diameter of the piston of most other manual toilets is 1 3/4".This may not sound like much of a difference, but when you calculate the cubic inch capacity (displacement) of the PHII with a 2 1/2" diameter piston, it comes out to a little over 12 cubic inches. If you do the same calculation for a pump with a 1 3/4" diameter piston, with the same 2 1/2" stroke, the cubic inch capacity is only 6 cubic inches. So, to put that all into English, the PHII will pump twice as much per stroke than a Jabsco. And the lever type handle reduces the amount of effort required to do it. Iow, you only have to pump half as many times to flush it, and your arm doesn't get as tired. Plus, with the lever handle, you don't have to bend over as far, with your nose practically in the bowl, while you're pumping it.

What's more, Jabsco manual toilets (like everything else today) are designed to be "disposable"--they don't want you to maintain or repair it...they want you to replace at least the pump, if not the whole toilet, at least every few years....that's why the service kit prices are 75-80% the price of a new pump--to discourage you from buying them.

Raritan, otoh, builds to last (maybe the last company of ANY kind on the planet that still does)...a PHC/PHII will last at least 20 years with just minimal maintenance--keep it lubricated, replace the joker valve annually and rebuild (cost $50-60) every 5-6 years. If you plan to trade up to a larger boat in only a few years, there's no reason why you can't take the PHC/II with you and put a shiny new Jabsco on your current boat for the next owner. Buy a really good toilet and get your money's worth out of it!

So it really comes down to "pay a bit more once now, or pay less now, but keep on paying and paying and paying"-- like one longtime member of this board who's replaced so many Jabscos with Jabscos that he has well over $1000 invested in $150 toilets.:dance:

And now I return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Steve Dion]

Ms. Hall: How have you been? We miss you.

 

[Joe]

First...the the PHC is just the "compact" version of the PH II...it's the same pump, but on a compact base and with a shorter handle. So everything that applies to the quality/durability/reliability/operation of the PHII also applies to the the PHC.

Now THAT , my friend, is an answer you can hang your hat on!! Arkansas is lucky to have you, Peggy.

Sooey, Pig!

Joe, previously from Ashdown... (that's in Little River county just north of Tex'rkana)

 

[Rick D]

Why Silence?

"So it really comes down to "pay a bit more once now, or pay less now, but keep on paying and paying and paying"-- like one longtime member of this board who's replaced so many Jabscos with Jabscos that he has well over $1000 invested in $150 toilets.:dance:"

... in the event you wondered why I kept quiet on this thread...

 

[Steve Dion]

Rick: I hope you noticed that I DID NOT even whisper your name. (oh was I thinking about it though)

 

[FourPoints]

Considering Maine Sail's insistence, and that the Head Mistress came out of retirement for this, I feel I would be committing a mortal sin to NOT get the PHC....


now I just need to figure out if this project is in the budget before I splash in 6 weeks or not.

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

now I just need to figure out if this project is in the budget before I splash in 6 weeks or not.

If it doesn't, stick with the portapotty for one more season to give you time for a little economic recovery.

Rick: I hope you noticed that I DID NOT even whisper your name.

Nor did I...didn't even allude to your general geographic location...which required amazing willpower!

Doing well, thank you Steve...but haven't quite managed to completely kick the forum habit yet. I'm workin' on it though. My email still works, so give me a shout if you can't find the answer here.

 

[thinwater]

... the PH II has a piston that has a 2 1/2 inch diameter; the diameter of the piston of most other manual toilets is 1 3/4".This may not sound like much of a difference, but when you calculate the cubic inch capacity (displacement) of the PHII with a 2 1/2" diameter piston, it comes out to a little over 12 cubic inches. If you do the same calculation for a pump with a 1 3/4" diameter piston, with the same 2 1/2" stroke, the cubic inch capacity is only 6 cubic inches....

But the stroke length is not the same, so the analogy is false.

I believe the Jabsco stroke is about 4.5 inches, giving a volume of of 11 cubic inches. Rather close. Interesting to know because it has a direct bearing on how many strokes are required to clear a given length of discharge hose, which is a good thing to know. About 1-3/4 stroke per foot for either unit, or about 10 strokes if the discharge hose is 6 feet long. As we know, if you don't clear the hose, waste will come back. Additionally, stale urine is perhaps the most destructive chemical most heads ever see; better to get it to the tank.

Because of the larger piston area the Rairtan unit has a lever giving ~ 2.5:1 leverage and thus about 25% higher discharge pressure through a slightly higher back pressure joker valve (does not open as wide as Jabsco). But a shorter stroke. TANSTAAFL.

A better unit, no doubt better able to take a good hard push on the handle. Just trying to keep the numbers straight.

----

I'm sorry, but there is something disturbing about wanting to take my toilet with me. I'm struggling with that.

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

I'm sorry, but there is something disturbing about wanting to take my toilet with me. I'm struggling with that.

If the toilet were a Baby Blake or Blakes Victory, I suspect the thought of leaving it behind would disturb you even more.

Why are you assuming that the PHII is stroke is only 2.5" and comparing that to an assumed 4.5" stroke for the Jabsco? 2.5" stroke for both was for illustration purpose only...to provide an "apples to apples" comparison that doesn't require advanced math to arrive at the relative amounts of water the pumps can move.

Additionally, stale urine is perhaps the most destructive chemical most heads ever see; better to get it to the tank.

You're ignoring the fact that ANY manual toilet--even a Jabsco--that's working anywhere close to factory spec can move bowl contents up to 6' in the dry mode...solving that problem without filling up the tank with water. Only a pint is needed then to rinse out the hose.

I'd love to stay and debate, but then I wouldn't still be retired.

So happy spring and don't forget to flush out all the critters that set up housekeeping in your vent lines and replace your joker valves (find the article "joker valve 101 to learn why it's so important to do that annually) as part of you spring recommissioning.

 

[thinwater]

If the toilet were a Baby Blake or Blakes Victory, I suspect the thought of leaving it behind would disturb you even more.

Why are you assuming that the PHII is stroke is only 2.5" and comparing that to an assumed 4.5" stroke for the Jabsco? 2.5" stroke for both was for illustration purpose only...to provide an "apples to apples" comparison that doesn't require advanced math to arrive at the relative amounts of water the pumps can move.

Additionally, stale urine is perhaps the most destructive chemical most heads ever see; better to get it to the tank.

You're ignoring the fact that ANY manual toilet--even a Jabsco--that's working anywhere close to factory spec can move bowl contents up to 6' in the dry mode...solving that problem without filling up the tank with water. Only a pint is needed then to rinse out the hose.

I'd love to stay and debate, but then I wouldn't still be retired.

So happy spring and don't forget to flush out all the critters that set up housekeeping in your vent lines and replace your joker valves (find the article "joker valve 101 to learn why it's so important to do that annually) as part of you spring recommissioning.

Not debate, just questions.

Regarding the volume, the makers don't state the flush-per-stroke (strokes-per-foot of hose) volume and I suggested why it would be a nice number for the owner to know. It would be nice to know both specifications. I measured the Jabsco stoke years ago and I'm fairly certain it was between 4 1/2 and 5". I'll get out the tape. I just assumed you knew; you stated the diameter, clearly, diameter without stroke means nothing, and yet for the purposes of example calculation the two strokes were arbitrarily set as equal.

Obviously, all the pumps can clear a hose. Pumping that much water is not needed, though we will agree that at least 10 strokes are likely required; I assumed the reader would guess some were wet and some were dry, as that is what the instructions state. Nothing to debate.

I can also safely surmise, after looking at dozens of failed joker valves and also exposing them in laboratory conditions to many chemicals, that extended exposure to urine is by far the common thread. It seems stale urine is FAR more aggressive than the younger product. While I'm sure you already know this, I thought it was worth repeating, for the readers. Nitrile (the elastomer used in Groco and Rairatan heads) doesn't like stale urine; it gets stiff and loses resilience, eventually gapping open. Time is also required to generate scale. I'm betting that if you performed an exposure time vs. scale study we would find that adequate flushing would greatly reduce the need to acid washing.

And even with a Baby Blake or Blakes Victory, that's creepy. Maybe.

 

[Stu Jackson]

One could debate this cr*p all day long. Stroke and diameter do make a difference in pumping volume, but my experience is that the strokes on different pumps aren't that much different. So a larger diameter pump, like the Raritan will simply mean less pumps to do whatever is required.

The Raritan is simply a much better system. But don't take my word for it...

 

[redhead78]

Well well, alrighty then, tomorrow I'll be throwing all caution to the wind when I install my spankin new Raritan PHII-HI-Boy, with the household bowl..all $400.00 dollars worth. The Jabsco looks like a toy toilet compared,they say quality stands the test of time, this thing looks like "ALs" "Fergeson 5000"... right now this thing is for my crew comfort, it looks like a quality product. It might sound a little weird if I were to give "a heads-up"on operation, so we'll see... Red

 

[thinwater]

One could debate this cr*p all day long. Stroke and diameter do make a difference in pumping volume, but my experience is that the strokes on different pumps aren't that much different. So a larger diameter pump, like the Raritan will simply mean less pumps to do whatever is required.

The Raritan is simply a much better system. But don't take my word for it...

Well, yeah.

 

[noanker]

when shopping for a boat one notices the equipment the owner has installed as upgrades. it tends to give an indication of how he felt about the boat and maintained it. that $82 could say a lot when you try to sell when you tell the prospective buyer you chose the raritan because it was the best and only the best goes into your boat.....just my opinion

 

[thinwater]

Why are you assuming that the PHII is stroke is only 2.5" and comparing that to an assumed 4.5" stroke for the Jabsco? 2.5" stroke for both was for illustration purpose only...to provide an "apples to apples" comparison that doesn't require advanced math to arrive at the relative amounts of water the pumps can move.

Those values were estimated from factory drawings, not assumed.

Subsequently I consulted all 3 factories directly to insure correct data. The volume per stroke are these:
Groco HF: 5.9 ounces (calculated)
Jabsco Twist-n-Lock: 5.9 ounces (calculated)
Raritan PH II: 5.6 ounces (factory measured flow)

So there is no important difference in pump volume. I presented actual facts which were, it seems, inconvenient (no, I'm not an Al Gore fan).

I agree that the Jabsco Twist-n-lock is a low-price head built for pump replacement rather than overhaul. Been there, done that. The Raritan PH II has received top value marks in every review that I have read or been involved with.